MANICKAM CHETTIAR VELMURUGAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-19(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases to the Assessing Officer based

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

section 147 clearly depicts that the Assessing Officer has power to make addition, where he arrived to a conclusion that income has escaped assessment which came to his notice during the course of proceedings of reassessment u/s 148. Our view is fortified by the decision in Majinder Singh Kang vs CIT (2012) 25 taxman.com 124/344

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

section 147 clearly depicts that the Assessing Officer has power to make addition, where he arrived to a conclusion that income has escaped assessment which came to his notice during the course of proceedings of reassessment u/s 148. Our view is fortified by the decision in Majinder Singh Kang vs CIT (2012) 25 taxman.com 124/344

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

section 147 clearly depicts that the Assessing Officer has power to make addition, where he arrived to a conclusion that income has escaped assessment which came to his notice during the course of proceedings of reassessment u/s 148. Our view is fortified by the decision in Majinder Singh Kang vs CIT (2012) 25 taxman.com 124/344

SUPPAHIRE EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,THANJAVUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD,, TRICHY

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases to the Assessing Officer based

SAPPAHIRE EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,THANJAVUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD,, TRICHY

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases to the Assessing Officer based

THANARAJ SUMATHI,MAYILADUTHURAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2031/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2019-20 Thanaraj Sumathi, Income Tax Officer, No.3/25, North Street, Vs. Ward-1 Moovalur, Kumbakonam. Mayiladuthurai – 609806. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Knyps-1061-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Cit. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that :-14-: ITA. No:2031/Chny/2025 "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases

CHAHIDA BEGAM,PUDUCHERRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PUDUCHERRY RANGE, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases to the Assessing Officer based

LOGANATHAN DHANDAPANI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases to the Assessing Officer based

FURSHANA GARMENTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases to the Assessing Officer based

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM KATHIRESAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

reassess the total income of six (6) years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted. And that from 01.04.2017, the power to assess/reassess the income was expanded from six (6) to ten (10) years and termed it as the relevant assessment year or years. [refer to Explanation-1 below Section 153A

S.DEVENDRAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore, there being no assessment under section 143(1)(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise

S.DEVENDRAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore, there being no assessment under section 143(1)(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise

M.R.PRASAD,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore, there being no assessment under section 143(1)(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise

M.R.PRASAD,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore, there being no assessment under section 143(1)(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise

PRAKASH,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore, there being no assessment under section 143(1)(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise

PRAKASH,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable. By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible. And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision. Therefore, there being no assessment under section 143(1)(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. ACHU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

reassessment, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (4) of section 245HA, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year.] 7.0 The Ld. AR informed that as per the prescription contained

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

reassessment, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (4) of section 245HA, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year.] 7.0 The Ld. AR informed that as per the prescription contained